I have a 4x5 Tech IV. Functionnally, the differences with the current
Master Technika are relatively minor, but I paid $1000 for mine, while
a new MT will set you back $5000. While I think this might be a fair
price for what it is, I feel it is too expensive for what it does.

When buying used, chose your model carefully. I would go at least
for a IV since the III has many incompatibilities with the more
recent models. Each more recent model has more features which make it more
convenient to use.
Also be sure to check
the triple extension bellows which is kind of 'famous'
for pin holes and cracks at the corners, mostly due to age and care,
not so much on choice of material.

Before even using it, I could see why it is a favorite of many
landscape photographers, among them David Muench, John Sexton, or
Bruce Barnbaum. The workmanship, precision, rigidity, and feel of
quality is excellent, especially compared to a wooden camera. The focussing
has a unique smoothness. Even the lensboards are superior (they'd
better be at $125) and snap in place with a very positive feeling that
the third party lensboard don't exactly give. It is manufactured with
the highest quality materials and precision in the German tradition
which has produced Leicas.
The Tech will fold up
in a small and entirely self-protected package which looks
undestructible. Note however that once I checked it in my luggage, the latch
which is used to close the camera broke during transport. It is much
faster opened and set up aligned than the wooden cameras. You just
lower the bed and snap it in place, then pull out the front standard
and you are set. If you had infinity tabs for your lens, you'd already
be ready to shoot.
When everything is locked, it feels much more solid. Although there are
lighter cameras with more movements or range of usable lenses, the
Tech is fairly competent. It will let you use 65mm to 450mm lenses
and give you all movements but rear translations. The back is pretty
full-featured.
It has a revolving back with the international attachment system and
a focussing hood which protects the ground glass.

The camera works perfectly for shooting straight with normal
lenses. I suspect that it was what it was designed primarily for,
since its basic design is very close to that of a press camera.
When you need to use movements, or, worse, wide lenses, that's another story.
I did not really enjoy using the Tech in the field for that reason.

The front
movements are sort of limited, and the tilt is inconvenient to operate
and therefore not so precise because of the weird zero-detent button
that you need to keep pressed. To unlock the "technical" back, you also
need a third hand. This
back is mounted to four horizontal sliding rods with a ball joint on one
end so the rear can be slid back more or less independently in each
corner. You
can also use this feature to focus, if you must, or to get maximum
bellows extension.
I didn't like the unique way it works, and personally
find I can perform movements more precisely with two independant axis.
The focussing hood was more a nuisance than a feature, since it gets
in the way when using the lupe. I guess it was not designed to do
critical work.

I work a lot with wide-angle
lenses, and this implies awkward gymnastics. Even with a 90mm, a mild
wide angle lens, the front of the camera will show up in the picture
in vertical format. Therefore, you have to drop the bed. Since it is
no longer horizontal, you have to tilt the front standard. When you
focus, you have to use the rise (which is somewhat limited by belows
compression) to keep the image centered. The rise knob is not easily
accessed at short extensions.
At that time I had a 58mm
lens which I was not even able to focus. I learned that you needed an
expensive accessory for that.

I understand that the Master Technika, with its top panel flip and
its differently positionned rise knob would be a better camera
for wide angle use. Some people don't ever use the rangefinder, and
have it removed. This saves a little weight and bulk, and presumably
diminishes bellows compression, giving you more movements.

The Technika has just enough extension to use a 450 lens at infinity.
However, the Nikkor M 450 that I once had didn't fit on the camera
because of the #3 shutter.

The other reason to use the Tech would be for its presumed
hand-holdability. However, in practice, besides the depth of field
issues, the camera is just too heavy for me to hold comfortably in
spite of a very good anatomical grip. The camera alone is 6lbs and half.
Think of the weight of a 300/2.8.
Besides, the fact to have no meter and a rangefinder separate from the
viewfinder does not help. Speaking of what, I have found the eye
relief of the viewfinder so short that with my glasses and on a wide
setting I can see only two thirds of the field. Maybe the latest model
is better, but it costs $1400. Moreover, the cost of having a cam cut
by Marflex to match a single existing lens with your Tech IV is almost the same as
buying a Speed Graphic. According to Linhoff, with the Tech IV, each
cam has to be cut for your specific camera and lens. It's only
starting from the Tech V that cams become interchangeable among cameras.
For hand-held operation, it would make sense
to use the Grafmatic, which let you shoot a sequence relatively fast.
However, in vertical position its dark slide would block the viewfinder.

Nowadays, it stays at home (like many Leicas I've been told). In all
fairness, I've become hooked on the 5x7 format and prefer to carry a
4x5 reducing back rather than another camera. The 11 lbs of a 5x7
Tech are not looking too attractive. If I use 4x5, that would be
mostly to save weight, and then I would prefer a lighter 4x5 camera
with less gymnastics involved for wide-angle use.

The Super designation was used from the III and later and the terms Super
and Technika are essentially interchangeable. In all of the factory serial
number listings that we are supplied with rangefinder models can have
either designation.

As a point of refrence the III was introduced in 1946 and discontinued in 1956.

Technika III = no forward lens tilt, different lens board, ground glass,
and cams (none of them are longer available or intercahageable with
the latter versions) than all later models, weaker drop bed, u shape lever
to pull out lens.

V, Master and Master 2000 have lever in front of front standard for lens
rise [NdE: much easier with wide lenses ]

Iv has more movement than III, V and Masters more than IV

Master and Master 2000 have lift-up flap on body housing to allow more
lens rise.

Master, V, IV and III can take lenses to 75mm on the focusing tracks and
require an accessory focusing device for 65 and 58mm lenses.
The III also requires a wa device but they are no longer available.

Master 2000 has built-in wide angle focusing ability and accepts lenses as
short as 45mm with no additional accessory.

III, IV, V, Master have built in rangefinder and accept optical finder.
Master 2000 has no rangefinder aND accepts an accessory electronic, IR,
rangefinder with LCD frame viewfinder built-in.

III and IV have unzeroed ground glass so camera and all lenses
necessary for camming, Later ones only lens is needed (except for the
new Master 2000). It is the ground glass position that varies from
camera to camera. On all III and IV models for accurate focusing over
the entire focusing range the cam MUST be matched to the lens and the
camera body. These cams are not interchangeable between any other III,
IV, V or Master. On the V and Master all backs have the same position
so then your answer is correct and the cam only needs to be matched to
the lens and cams are interchangeable between any V and any Master
Technika (not the Master Technika 2000 which does not use cams.

If you have further questions call me at 201 808-9010 x 15, I have been
the Linhof Product manager since 1979.